This is completely crazy. I was really looking forward to a having a Vail server and DE was the main reason. Had some bad experience with raids. Going to try out amahi now!
What he ^^ said.
DE is a major factor for WHS appealing, and without it, I lose any interest at all.
What intrigues me is the quote …
The announcement also explained that feedback from the small and medium business markets ….
Excuse me, but what what part of Windows
Home Server are those morons at MS not understanding? This was supposed to be positioned as a home product, not a small or medium business one.
Microsoft been Microsoft, waring factions inside the firm. Looks like the WHS team wants to make their system higher performing… Yey!
By all means promote hardware RAID, encorage the OEMs to offer it, demonstrate its performance advantages but seriously? I hope for a U turn.
It seems Microsoft has been massaging the news somewhat. Paul Thurrott's
posted comments regarding a discussion he had with Microsoft's Kevin Kean:
“Drive Extender was a neat feature, but the implementation was off, and we discovered some application compatibility and disk tool problems related to its ability to correct data errors on the fly,” Microsoft general manager Kevin Kean told me. “We don't want to give customers problems; we want to give them solutions. So ultimately, we decided that we needed to cut out Drive Extender. Removing Drive Extender will make file shares easy, and it's possible to accomplish most of its features otherwise. For example, you use the server's centralized backup or even RAID as an alternative to data duplication.”
I was gutted when the news broke yesterday. I'd already begun planning a custom built replacement for my trusty HP box as WHS v1 has served me well, I'd anticipated v2 would do the same. DE v1 does have its problems, streaming large media files can get a little choppy, and with it being 32bit, it has compatibility issues with large hard drives (2TB and greater). I'd hoped DE v2 would have rectified that but alas it looks like it won't be happening any time soon, if at all.
To me, and many others (plenty of comments on both
WeGotServed and
MediaSmartServer.net), the future of WHS sans DE is now questionable. I don't want to be reliant on 3rd party solutions for data duplication, and despite having the technical know-how, I would have preferred not to have to manage a less flexible RAID setup.
Saracen
What he ^^ said.
DE is a major factor for WHS appealing, and without it, I lose any interest at all.
What intrigues me is the quote …
Excuse me, but what what part of Windows Home Server are those morons at MS not understanding? This was supposed to be positioned as a home product, not a small or medium business one.
WHS has always been a home and small business technology, despite the name. With the introduction of Vail, they're introducing a 25-license Active Directory capable version specifically for slightly larger businesses (as far as I know, may not be 100% accurate).
Nonetheless, this is ridiculous. Drive extender is the
sole reason I like WHS. If it's removed from Vail, I'll probably install Server 2008 on my WHS box instead… no point whatsoever.
Like most, I was under the impression that this was WHS's “USP” (key feature). Certainly it was one of the most talked-about features in the press when it came out. Without it, I really can't see what the advantage is over a multi-disc NAS box (from one of the usual suspects).
*goes hunting for Dell Perc 5i on ebay*
Irritating, as I was hoping to add drives as I needed them, but I suppose I can guess my storage requirements and just buy the drives in one go….
Flipping crazy. I'm sticking with my original WHS then.
I never like the idea of WHS so not really a deal braking news for me.
IF I wanted to run RAID1 I would, without WHS that is..
Storing not redundant data its not for me and needing 50% of my storage to make it redundant isn't for me either.
What's so special about WHS as opposed to a proper RAID array?
*Runs rather quickly to put flame-proof coat on*
well its not RAID1, its RAID5.
That is the point of WHS, its replicated storage for people who don't know the difference between RAID5 and RAID1, or who cba to do any boring admin work.
spoon_
I never like the idea of WHS so not really a deal braking news for me.
IF I wanted to run RAID1 I would, without WHS that is..
Storing not redundant data its not for me and needing 50% of my storage to make it redundant isn't for me either.
What's so special about WHS as opposed to a proper RAID array?
*Runs rather quickly to put flame-proof coat on*
You don't get it do you.
The whole point behind WHS was that oem's made a all in one box with WHS on and sold it to the home user who didn't need much more training other then told to click here, Simple and Effective, no fuss or mess. They didn't have to concern themselfs with raid this or that, it just worked.
Now one of the USP's of the system is being taken out i don't think i will be getting the new version at all and i can not see me putting this fwd for recomendation to thoese that ask about doing this or that.
Really what are MS thinking……
Does it matter? RAID5 (even bios/soft RAID) will fill in for both file duplication and drive extender, and do it better and more consistently. Nothing of value was lost.
TheAnimus
well its not RAID1, its RAID5.
That is the point of WHS, its replicated storage for people who don't know the difference between RAID5 and RAID1, or who cba to do any boring admin work.
Hardly. There are a lot of benefits over RAID, like the fact that you can plug any of the disks into any old USB caddy and all of the files are ready and accessible. And there are no rebuild times or increased risk of failure as a consequence of RAID recovery, it's all more or less instantaneous and transparent, although its inner workings are adequately hidden to prevent you making a hash of it.
The fact that so many of us, who are tech-minded enough to know exactly what RAID is, are using WHS proves that there's a lot more to it than “NAS for idiots”.
dave87
*goes hunting for Dell Perc 5i on ebay*
Irritating, as I was hoping to add drives as I needed them, but I suppose I can guess my storage requirements and just buy the drives in one go….
You can still add drives as you need/get them on a real RAID card. Oh, and I would recommend looking at the 6i cards instead. With large drives, RAID-6 is the way to go in my opinion.
This is Microsoft's worst decision in a long time. The whole point of WHS was simplified and reliable Home PC backup and replicated storage, and Drive Extender delivered that. You don't need to worry about separate backups or RAID (or the additional cost & hassle of managing these as your storage needs grow). Without Drive Extender, WHS Vail is dead on arrival.
This decision is creating a furore across the WHS consumer base - check out the comments here:
http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/windowshomeserver/archive/2010/11/23/windows-home-server-code-name-vail-and-drive-extender.aspxI won't be upgrading my WHS to Vail without DE, and I won't be recommending Vail as a Home Server solution to anyone. You don't need an ‘IT guy’ with WHS. You may as well just build a home server with a full server OS, set up a simple linux server, or use a NAS. And fill in the other gaps (backup, RAID storage growth etc) yourself by various less elegant means.
It does seem crazy, maybe time pressure to cut it rather than fix it? About time they provided a Home server software setup that doesnt require someone with IT knowledge to adapt it for more storage.
I refuse to join this cloud crap thats circling the globe at this time, got to be mad putting all your personal data and info on a service that they can revoke or access under some crap ass law that they recon gives them the right.
I do think MS have done a dis-service to the home network this time :(
I'll be sticking with v1 then
'[GSV
Trig;2010331']I'll be sticking with v1 then
Ditto
I think I'll stick with v1 and start saving for a drobo elite that I can use as home NAS and iSCSI san for my homelab.
I half expect them to give in now. I sincerely hope that they do.
TheAnimus
well its not RAID1, its RAID5.
That is the point of WHS, its replicated storage for people who don't know the difference between RAID5 and RAID1, or who cba to do any boring admin work.
Hmm I was under the impression that WHS either didn't offer any redundancy or it did by mirroring your data therefore eating 50% from your “pool” if you like.
If I still don't get it like some people suggested, how much space I would need to have 1TB of redundant data?
Moby-Dick
I think I'll stick with v1 and start saving for a drobo elite that I can use as home NAS and iSCSI san for my homelab.
What puts me off from Drobo is the stupid dashboard. Complete fail when it comes to enterprise environments, no one is gonna mock about trying to manage it without web browser.
Also iSCSI performance gives plenty to think about…
spoon_
Hmm I was under the impression that WHS either didn't offer any redundancy or it did by mirroring your data therefore eating 50% from your “pool” if you like.
If I still don't get it like some people suggested, how much space I would need to have 1TB of redundant data?
You have a choice. You can duplicate shares, or you can not bother duplicating them.
If they're duplicated, then each individual file is stored on two separate physical disks. You don't necessarily know which disks the two separate copies are on, but they will be on one of them.
If you have two 1TB disks, then ignoring the OS installation, you can get 1TB of redundant data. Realistically, 930GB due to binary, then a few GB for the OS, so 900GB of data duplication.
I am a home user of WHS and for one I am glad they are ditching DE.
It has been the biggest thorn in WHS side in my opinion, especially as my primary use for WHS is as a video streaming device. DE just slows everything down, glad to be shot of it.
Why do something in software when hardware can do it better and more reliably and to an agreed standard.
As long as the implementation of the hardware raid, is user friendly enough, and there is no reason it shouldn't be, why is everyone complaining?
Raid 5 will no doubt be the standard implementation, so every WHS will need 3 Drives as default, and you can still expand as the need arises.
saltyzip
I am a home user of WHS and for one I am glad they are ditching DE.
It has been the biggest thorn in WHS side in my opinion, especially as my primary use for WHS is as a video streaming device. DE just slows everything down, glad to be shot of it.
Why do something in software when hardware can do it better and more reliably and to an agreed standard.
As long as the implementation of the hardware raid, is user friendly enough, and there is no reason it shouldn't be, why is everyone complaining?
Raid 5 will no doubt be the standard implementation, so every WHS will need 3 Drives as default, and you can still expand as the need arises.
That's absolute rubbish, to be honest. I wouldn't touch RAID 5 with a bargepole. If I want to change my drive configuration, I have to wait hours and hours for it to rebuild? If a drive fails, I have to spend 10 nervewracking hours waiting to see if another one gives up the ghost during the rebuild? My files are inaccessible outside of the RAID environment. I can't use drives of varying sizes at the same time.
It is far from better.
10 hours? I have a 4TB RAID5 array on my Linux boxen, and it only takes 5 hours to sync. You're talking about what if the 2nd disk dies? That in itself is a *highly* improbable event. But to bring things into prospective, file and folder duplication can't tolerate ONE disk failure, much less two (RAID6 can!).
Also, no amount of mass storage subsystem magic is going to replace a proper backup. If it's important, back it up. And I certainly wouldn't put my faith in an experimental file duplication system that even Microsoft has admitted is flawed and has abandoned.
The new Drive Extender from what I read and was planed for Vail stored data in proprietary blocks and therefore a file might be spread over multiple drives. Therefore if one drive went down it could take out a lot of files due to this fragmentation of storage approach, possibly corrupting all your files, if it was full of lovely bluray ISO files.
The existing DE system is flawed due to performance implications, the new proposed DE is also flawed due to this fragmentation approach which no doubt was causing Microsoft big headaches to ensure duplication/redundancy can be assured.
Rather than spend 100,000's pounds trying to find some DE approach that actually works, which they obviously aren't getting anywhere fast, they are ditching it for a RAID approach, which is already tried and tested.
It may not appear so user friendly, but remember WHS is not supposed to be a self install on any old bit of tin, it is supposed to be purchased with specifically designed tin, such as HP MediaSmart.
Let HP and Microsoft supply the needed interface to assist with the RAID manipulation, to make it more Home User friendly.
Before shouting it down, lets see what they have in mind first.
aidanjt
Does it matter? RAID5 (even bios/soft RAID) will fill in for both file duplication and drive extender, and do it better and more consistently. Nothing of value was lost.
That suggests you don't understand the purposes and uses for DE.
First, DE is designed to be easy to use and manage, RAID 5 isn't. Second, DE is designed to be
very versatile in the drives you can use, supporting, for instance, internal and external drives, and both USB and Firewire. Let's see you do that with RAID 5. Next, you want to add extra storage a year or two after you set the machine up, you just add whatever the current best value is in capacity. It may be that when you set the machine up, 500GB was what most people bought, but now, it's 1.5GB, so you buy a 1.5GB drive and add it. Can RAID 5 do that?
But it's more versatile in use, too. For a start, I can specify what I want duplicated on the server on a folder by folder basis. Some types of data I just wanted stored and served, other types I want duplicated as
part of a backup strategy.
And finally, if the WHS machine dies, I can just take the drive out, put it in another machine and read the files off it. Good luck doing that with a single disc from a RAID 5 array.
For some types of use, WHS and DE is a great solution. It's not a universal panacea, and there are times when RAID 5 (or, indeed, other RAID levels) are a better bet, but not all the time. It's horses for courses. And far from, as some have suggested, DE being a solution for those that don't understand RAID 5, I've been using RAID 5 for years, and certainly since well before HEXUS existed. My main server is still using a 6-disc RAID 5 arrangement, with 5 live discs and a hot spare, all in hot-swap carriers. And, for that matter, I have two identical spare RAID 5 boards, and several spare carriers and mounting bays, and a couple of spare drives sitting in a cupboard, just in case. And two other RAID 5 systems. So it's not that I don't understand or can't build or run a RAID 5 system. It's that WHS/DE gives me some options that RAID doesn't. And, by the way, that's my home setup I'm talking about, not a corporate one.
saltyzip
….
It may not appear so user friendly, but remember WHS is not supposed to be a self install on any old bit of tin, it is supposed to be purchased with specifically designed tin, such as HP MediaSmart.
Let HP and Microsoft supply the needed interface to assist with the RAID manipulation, to make it more Home User friendly.
Before shouting it down, lets see what they have in mind first.
Sorry, but no. For many of us, DE is a large part of
why we went for WHS in the first place. Remove that, and MS remove for reason for using WHS. Personally, I have zero interest in a WHS based on RAID. If I wanted an OS slapped on top of a RAID system, I can do that already, and without paying MS for the privilege.
MS obviously can, and probably will, do whatever they feel like. But if they abandon DE, as it seems they have (short of a u-turn) they
will alienate a large chunk of the existing WHS community, many of whom will, I'd guess, either stick with WHS v1 for as long as practical, or move to a non-MS solution. I certainly will. WHS without the functionality of DE is, for me anyway, not worth having and certainly not worth paying for.
I'm just glad that my v1 does all I need it to do, I wasn't planning on an upgrade anyway. I think killing off DE will kill off WHS, being able to upgrade disks by just buying new ones was the main reason I have WHS, no fuss.
Everyone here seems technically minded, so where is the problem with maintaining the RAID array?
You all moan that iPhone is locked by Apple and want more freedom so you go Android, fair enough.
This is where I'm stuck in understanding why you all went for WHS in the first place?
What's the point of WHS IF you have to double the storage to have your data redundant?
My backup box runs 5x1.5TB in RAID5 and sorry I'm not changing that over to WHS and buying extra FIVE drives to have my data redundant.
Simply, I cannot justify the overhead. Like I said earlier if I wanted RAID1, I would create RAID1 array without WHS being involve BUT there is no point if you have few TBs of data, too much wasted space.
I don't have a problem in maintaining my array, decent RAID card will offer online migration/expansion options and the performance is far superior to what WHS can offer , if WHS can saturate two aggregated (802.3ad) 1Gbps links then I take this point back.
DE is probably a good thing, for my mate who hasn't got a clue what RAID is - hence me recommending him to go for Drobo, similar concept but not as ‘thick’ in utilizing the available space.
spoon_
What's the point of WHS IF you have to double the storage to have your data redundant?
The point is flexibility.
- You don't have to have the whole thing mirrored, like on RAID,
you choose on a folder by folder basis.
- Throw another drive in there to add storage.
- Pull a drive out at any time and read the data in a usb caddy.
Without all that - what USP does WHS have left ? Still has the network drive imaging
- so any PC on the network is backed up automatically (with nice single instance deduplication),
-files can be restored as normal, but you can also do a bare metal restore via a CD
its still worth having on the network just for that.
I think its an astonishingly bad move by microsoft though - but WHS has taken sales from Server2008 /SBS
despite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user :D
The point is DE is not about performance, has no specific hardware costs involved. You can span drives across anything, with ease without having to lock up the machine.
Rather than replication been based on the volume you are using, its based on the file. So rather than physical location its more the role of the share. This is better and more natural to most peoples requirements.
Also its not as if you can't turn it off if you don't want it, if you've got a RAID5 hardware controller say.
aidanjt
10 hours? I have a 4TB RAID5 array on my Linux boxen, and it only takes 5 hours to sync. You're talking about what if the 2nd disk dies? That in itself is a *highly* improbable event. But to bring things into prospective, file and folder duplication can't tolerate ONE disk failure, much less two (RAID6 can!).
Also, no amount of mass storage subsystem magic is going to replace a proper backup. If it's important, back it up. And I certainly wouldn't put my faith in an experimental file duplication system that even Microsoft has admitted is flawed and has abandoned.
Another failure isn't that unlikely when you're beating the disks to a pulp whilst making them rebuild.
And how on earth can file and folder duplication fail to tolerate one disk failure?
As for backup, as you point out that's a moot point.
TheAnimus
despite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user :D
Fair enough, thought you were swanning around calling us all a bunch of idiots :p
Who here wants to spend more time managing a server at home? The point of WHS and DE is simple replicated storage, on multiple types of storage devices. Expanding live RAID arrays does have inherent risks.
The move to drop DE in Vail is a) aimed at cosying up to OEMs that want to sell more expensive RAID systems; b) dropping the ‘headache’ of future-proofing DE since they obviously hit some tricky technical issues that would have taken more time and $$$ to solve - and they want to get the product out the door now; and c) limiting WHS poaching Server 2008 SBS and Storage Server sales from Small Businesses.
WHS v1 with DE = more time I can spend with my family.
WHS v2 Vail = Fail.
I'm not against RAID, I use RAID 1 for my home PC's storage LUN (Win7 ultimate). WHS is effectively my backup of my RAID 1 array, my Squeezebox Server, and my remote access gateway when away from home. Simple, low cost, and next to zero management.
TheAnimus
despite what snooty might think about my flippant comment of WHS been RAID for those who are too ignorant or too lazy (there is NOTHING wrong with been lazy so long as you don't loose functionality) I'm a WHS user :D
….
Aha!
Another secret WHS user outed.
:D
spoon_
….
What's the point of WHS IF you have to double the storage to have your data redundant?
My backup box runs 5x1.5TB in RAID5 and sorry I'm not changing that over to WHS and buying extra FIVE drives to have my data redundant.
Simply, I cannot justify the overhead. Like I said earlier if I wanted RAID1, I would create RAID1 array without WHS being involve BUT there is no point if you have few TBs of data, too much wasted space.
I don't have a problem in maintaining my array, decent RAID card will offer online migration/expansion options and the performance is far superior to what WHS can offer , if WHS can saturate two aggregated (802.3ad) 1Gbps links then I take this point back.
DE is probably a good thing, for my mate who hasn't got a clue what RAID is - hence me recommending him to go for Drobo, similar concept but not as ‘thick’ in utilizing the available space.
Nobody is suggesting that WHS suits all users or all situations. Not everybody has several TBs of data, and not everybody wants to lash out on good (and typically, therefore, expensive) RAID 5 controllers.
What's the core point of RAID 5? It's not inherently about data redundancy but about system resilience, and user uptime. And, for instance, anyone that has a need for user uptime to the point of RAID 5 is an idiot if they rely on RAID for backup. So they should have, and I'd assume you do have, a backup strategy in place.
WHS and DE is aimed at a different situation. For a start, it's aimed at a situation, be it home or small business, where that degree of resilience isn't necessary. It's aimed at be in easy to use, easy to install, and easy to grow, and grow organically at that. In part, it
is the backup strategy, because it'll back up connected clients …. and doesn't need DE for that. But in part, it's about data duplication by keeping copies of files on a separate HD.
Is that a belt-and-braces backup strategy? No. But is it enough for many users? Yup. Any backup strategy has it's vulnerabilities and it's always about a balance between cost and effort on one side, and the value and irreplaceability of the data the other.
It's about the right tool for the right job, and the nature of the tool varies with the nature of the job.
spoon_
….
What's the point of WHS IF you have to double the storage to have your data redundant?
….
You don't, necessarily. Not everything on a WHS box has to be duplicated. That's part of the “nature of the job” …. and part of the appeal. That, and growing organically simply by adding an extra drive when you need extra space.
WHS was not intended to be an industrial strength solution, but a tool for a specific type of job. And without DE, it won't do the job that many adherents use it for.
So it isn't the right solution for your needs. That'll be why you aren't using it, then. Fair enough. But it
is the right tool for lots of us, and a RAID 5 array is, often, simply not.
Having only just looked at the Product Overviews for Windows SBS ‘7’ and ‘Aurora’, I'm assuming some implementation will still be implemented in these products?
Having not read in-depth about these yet, I'm not sure how similar the technologies will be though?
If that's the case, it almost seems strange to take DE away from a Home Server offering, where RAID is even more likely to be shunned, yet keep this in an SMB solution?
Product Overview for Windows ® Small Business Server Code Name “Aurora” and Windows ® Small Business Server “7”
Flexible Storage: Windows Small Business Server Code Name “Aurora” Drive Extender is a technology that simplifies server storage management. It enables you to easily expand the server’s storage capacity using internal and/or external hard drives of varying sizes and types, and it helps protect your data from many silent hard drive data errors.
spoon_
Everyone here seems technically minded, so where is the problem with maintaining the RAID array?
The whole point is that I don't want to manage a RAID array, because life is too short do that sort of crap if no-one is paying me for it.
What I want to do is be able to set up a bunch of folders and tag some of them as being Important (make sure they are duplicated) and leave the rest (stuff I can easily re-rip, re-download, or don't really care about).
Then I just use the thing, and every now and then it moans about needing another drive, and I plug in another terabyte or two using SATA, IDE, eSATA or USB3. All the stuff I care about is duplicated to separate drives, all the rest is just shoved in wherever there is a bit of free space.
Every now and then snapshot the duplicated (Important) folders to an external drive and leave it in my drawer at work for a bit of offsite backup, and the job is done.
The great thing about DE is that it is (was) content-focused rather than being obsessed with cards and ports and drives and whatnot, which is unnecessary for a consumer environment.
Oh please, you people talk as if running RAID is rocket science. It's really not. Even software RAID is simple, and that's the most complex of the lot.
aidanjt
Oh please, you people talk as if running RAID is rocket science. It's really not. Even software RAID is simple, and that's the most complex of the lot.
It's not rocket science, but it adds a layer of effort that for many situations where WHS/DE is a good solution, it simply isn't necessary, cost-effective or even desirable.
What effort? If a disk dies, you replace it, walk away, and the array automatically rebuilds, job done. What happens when the primary disk dies on a DE volume? The system is dead. That means bringing it into PC world if you're the audience you describe, a complete system reinstall if you're not, add-on software reinstalled, users and shares to reset up, and the files will have to be reduplicated as well. And that doesn't even begin to address the underlying complexity of such a messy layer.
I'm about to drop a 500GB drive into my server because I've got one kicking around and I'm a little bit short of space.
That's impossible with RAID.
oh and pull it out once you've got that larger 1tb drive handy….. don't forget that.
Saracen
What he ^^ said.
DE is a major factor for WHS appealing, and without it, I lose any interest at all.
What intrigues me is the quote …
Excuse me, but what what part of Windows Home Server are those morons at MS not understanding? This was supposed to be positioned as a home product, not a small or medium business one.
^this. And thus. Vail becomes fail.
The whole point behind WHS was to remove complexity. Well MS. You just removed yourself from the running for my parents project. Will prob use a linux solution instead now.
Are they serious about fake raid? I have tried this a couple of times, even in RAID 10 configuration and it actually degrades performance and in actual fact ended up reducing reliability because it isn't really RAID and doesn't actually operate fully at the hardware level. Software RAID is actually better.
Without Drive extender, you are actually better off buying a Netgear SAN box or similar. Vail === Fail for sure.
–mark
What I *do* find rather amusing is how widely panned WHS was at beta and release stage. I tinkered with it (got it via Technet) and couldn't justify the cost or resource but to me it's clearly a good fit for a lot of small home networks. In that kind of environment while DE isn't the only selling point it's a pretty large one so I can see why the uproar.
miw
Are they serious about fake raid? I have tried this a couple of times, even in RAID 10 configuration and it actually degrades performance and in actual fact ended up reducing reliability because it isn't really RAID and doesn't actually operate fully at the hardware level. Software RAID is actually better.
You realise that “fakeraid” *is* a software RAID?
Without Drive extender, you are actually better off buying a Netgear SAN box or similar. Vail === Fail for sure.
–mark
SAN != NAS. Seriously, the target market of WHS really aren't looking at SAN storage.
Splash
You realise that “fakeraid” *is* a software RAID?
Less flexible, though. You can transplant drives using the OS's own software RAID from one box to another much easier than if it's using a particular brand of fakeraid that isn't in the second box